This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Originally Posted by JasperL

It's called single payer. Every developed country on the planet has some version of it. Everyone is covered, far cheaper, excellent results, etc. But that's socialism, which is great for Grandma, but will ruin the country if it's extended to the rest of us.

Um, no. First off, the country won't be ruined, but it wouldn't happen anyway. If Obama and the Democrats couldn't get single payer in place, nobody can. Secondly, the government shouldn't be in the business of price fixing when they have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm fine with this law for the entitlement expansion that it is. I'll wait for some experts to figure out a better, more expedient, less expensive way of doing things. And as long as insurance pays, there's no motivation for anyone in the healthcare industry to scramble and work to lower their costs by eliminating waste from the processes. The ACA ensured that the insurance companies make out like bandits, subsidized by taxpayers, of course.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

What exactly is the confusion here? You consume health care services without any regard for their price or whether a cheaper alternative is available. Then complain about prices.

And apparently are somehow unclear on how your behavior contributes to the problem.

Oh, of course. It's all my fault. Instead of listening to someone who has been paying her insurance for decades without begging for someone else to assist her, let's listen to politicians who don't know anything about medicine or business, and let's listen to the people who can't afford to take care of themselves and their families. And if I cost shopped, it would all be affordable!

You can cheerlead the ACA to someone else, Greenbeard. You do it well, and I'm sure you can find someone else who needs help to pay his/her bills to high five and got Daddy Obama to do it. I'm not one of those people.

Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Originally Posted by tres borrachos

Oh, of course. It's all my fault. Instead of listening to someone who has been paying her insurance for decades without begging for someone else to assist her, let's listen to politicians who don't know anything about medicine or business, and let's listen to the people who can't afford to take care of themselves and their families. And if I cost shopped, it would all be affordable!

Actions speak louder than words. In your actions, you demonstrate you don't care at all how much any health service costs. It doesn't matter to you. Let me quote you: "I. Don't. Need. To. It isn't relevant to the cost of my plan." And that's true! Your plan is designed to insulate you from having to care how much anything costs.

And yet here you are bemoaning the prices of those services.

What should one believe? What you say, or what you do?

I hate to break it to you but short of price-setting by an outside entity there is no "fix" that doesn't involve pushing you to change your behavior. A market-based approach means rationalizing the consumer's decision-making process and exposing them to price where possible. From what I can tell, you really don't want that. Which means it seems we have yet another closet single-payer advocate in the crowd. Seems like there are more on the right than the left these days.

re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Originally Posted by Henrin

So if it not my problem nor my concern exactly why should I pay for it?

I can't answer that. You will have to pay for it because you live in a society that believes in taking care of the poor, and taxes are the price of admission, and you don't get to choose what your taxes dollars are spent on.

re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

That's the second time you're brought up cost-sharing as a negative, just in the last few thread pages.

Let me make sure I understand. Health care should never be free. Nor should people share in the costs they incur.

Is that where we're at? The "proud conservative" position? I honestly can't tell if you realize that in effect you've adopted the left's argument. You're in fine company, most of the right has at this point.

The Democrat party promised " affordability " and then delivered mandated cost increases on Middle class Americans. That pissed people off.

What did you expect ? People don't like being scammed and lied to.

The title of the law is and will always be a shining example of just how dishonest and manipulative the Democrat party can be. Who would have thought that the Democrat party had the superhuman ability to look years ahead into the future fiances of every Middle Class American while simultaneously predicting the future economic conditions of the Country just so they could bring us " affordable healthcare "

The Title was and is a lie.

Cost and premiums continue to climb but now they're justified with desperate and ridiculous claims that the ACA slowed down the rate of increase. If Health Care or Health Insurance was NOT " affordable " to begin with ( apparently why we needed the ACA ) how is it MORE AFFORDABLE now that cost continue to climb ? It's not.

All the propaganda and wishful thinking in the world isn't going to make Obamacare a good law. You can spend hour upon hour posting one pro-ACA article after the other, it's not going to make any difference. The Democrat party and it's candidates in 2016 are STILL going to pretend like it doesn't exist. Just like they did in 2014.

And the American people are going to react much in the same way they did in 2014. Empty promises that turned into lies already forgotten by the party that gave us this disaster wont BE forgotten by the voters.

I think people that support the ACA and continue to misrepresent it's impact while they ignore the sufferings of Millions of American families are near sociopaths. Well, that describes the left in so many ways. Ideology over Country, over integrity, over reality.

" If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else ? "
Ronald Reagan

re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

No, I mean deductibles and coinsurance. The things that make one contribute something at the point of service when they get care (and in some sort of proportion to the cost/price of services selected). The foundation of any market-based system in the health sector.

Cost and premiums continue to climb but now they're justified with desperate and ridiculous claims that the ACA slowed down the rate of increase. If Health Care or Health Insurance was NOT " affordable " to begin with ( apparently why we needed the ACA ) how is it MORE AFFORDABLE now that cost continue to climb ? It's not.

Slowing the rate of increase ("bending the cost curve") is the point of any health reform. Slowing its growth such that the rest of the economy (not to mention people's paychecks) can catch up and even pass its growth rate is the key to long-term financial viability.

Seeking rapid deflation in a sector that 1) employs millions and millions of people (and, as is often pointed out, makes up ~1/6 of the economy), and 2) has 70+% of its costs locked up in labor expenses is not particularly wise.

re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Originally Posted by upsideguy

When you make statements such as...

"Nonsense, the decision was legally indefensible EXCEPT to the shameless or delusional"....

This is a debate forum. There is actually a theory and a set of rules to having a debate. You don't get to simply debate impressions of things. When you make an assertion, you must be prepared to back-up you that assertion when challenged. If you can not, then the assertion is considered invalid. Consider yourself so challenged.

Unartful dodging. In response to your demand to see law credentials I asked you "where and when did you get your puffed up idea that having a view of the law requires a law degree and law practice? What are you, forum qualifications inspector? This is a thread discussing a legal opinion rendered by the Supreme Court, I didn't notice a self-appointed gate-keeper."

Your obliviously tone deaf reply? Another another lecture telling me what I get to say or not say according to your "rules", followed by an non-germane discourse on what "must be backed up"...yada yada. One supposes that your red herring lecturing response is just your way of confirming to all that "Yes, I am the forum qualifications inspector and a gate-keeper".

You have ZERO base of telling us its "indefensible" because you do not know. Really, you are telling us you have superior knowledge of the law and Constitution to each member of the Supreme Court. How arrogant!

LOL...now your telling me I have personal character fault? Is this also a part of your "rules" of discourse on a debate board?

I have an unimpeachable basis of telling you its indefensible, because I've read the most salient points of Robert's argument and its junk law. And because he has extensive knowledge of the law, he must know it. And what I am telling you is that I have a superior and honest view of the Constitution to that of six of the justices (who are, as often as not, flim-flamming sophists and carny barking scammers).

The only way you can back up an assertion of something being "legally indefensible" is with expertise. In this case, real and credible knowledge of the law. Either you have that knowledge yourself (real and credible because you have a law degree) or can produce third party expertise (an real and credible attorney that is considered an expert in Constitutional Law) or your assertion is nothing but a shallow, meaningless, uninformed impression, which I suspect that is what is .

Rubbish. Two plus two equals four - irrespective of whether the claim is made by a paper clip stringer or a Phd in mathematics. All it requires is the knowledge and reasoning abilities to see the obvious.

I don't need to quote some "expert", not when I have already dissected the opinion and found it long on twaddle and short on seriousness. Like 2 plus 2, it took no special skills and minimal knowledge to see that.

You want to debate on DP....be prepared to defend yourself. I love calling people out on their meaningless, uninformed impressions as they are a waste of everyone's time and unworthy of the cyberspace they occupy.

Apparently you love calling others impressions as meaningless and uninformed, without providing a parsley sprig of proof...which, come to think of it...would make your "impressions" equally meaningless and uninformed.

So, produce your credentials or your third party expertise or re-state by telling us this is your most humble opinion (which is a polite way of telling us its just an impression.)

So produce your credentials or third party expertise that tells us "that having a view of the law requires a law degree and law practice?" and that makes you "forum qualifications inspector"?